I would guess that Barney Frank's retirement is fifty percent disgust at the rancor of modern campaigns - his 2010 win was brutal and expensive - and fifty percent a recognition that whether Barack Obama wins or loses, there is virtually no chance of a winning liberal legislative agenda in the near future.

And yes, Frank and Charlie Gonzalez are signs of a trend that will sweep in another five to ten senior Democrats in the next sixty days. There is no serious Democrat in Washington who expects the House majority to change hands, and while they expect Obama to win, Hill Democrats are no fans of this White House. They see a second term of small bore initiatives, deficit reduction, jockeying over the successors to Obama and Pelosi, and retrenchment on healthcare and financial reform. Its not what they signed up for and a lot of them are heading for home, or "up or out" statewide races.

House Republicans are popping champagne corks over a couple of retirements when they should be busy fundraising. The DCCC and Nancy Pelosi have run circles around the NRCC this cycle, outraising them by millions, an extraordinary accomplishment for a party that just lost the majority. This is a good sign that House Dems will enter 2012 with the wind at their backs.

The news of Barney Frank’s retirement today made the political guard at the DCCC shutter. Barney Frank would not be retiring if he thought he would be chairman again of the powerful Financial Services Committee in 2012. Remember how he used his position on the committee to help his partner get a job with mortgage giant Fannie Mae in the early 1990s? Barney Frank, who infamously wanted to “roll the dice” on sub-prime housing and not “focus on safety and soundness” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was a key defender and advocate of the poor lending practices for home mortgages that led to the housing collapse and ultimately the harsh downturn in the United States economy.

His resignation is a clear sign that reality has set in within the House Democrat Caucus that regaining the majority is just a pipe dream that the DCCC likes to talk about with its top donors. For as many seats as the Republicans picked up last year, there are several more out there for the taking in Republican territory. House Democrats face a daunting task because they will be paying the political price of having Barack Obama at the top of the ticket as well as for their decision to elect San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi as their leader once again.

The Dodd-Frank legacy: overregulation and the rapid retirement of its sponsors. Will the person who signed it into law be next?

There are two variables that will determine who controls the House in 2013 – whether President Obama is reelected, and can Democrats successfully exploit the Ryan budget plan to reduce taxes for the wealthy while making seniors pay $6,000 a year more for Medicare. Republicans are sealing their own fate by refusing to make the grand bargain with President Obama to reduce the deficit. In their single-minded zeal to defeat the president they are causing their own defeat. Now, look for both President Obama to win, and the Republicans to lose the House. Beware of your own wishes.

Barney Frank has made history as a brilliant, outspoken advocate for GLBT rights and American consumers. He will continue to be an irrepressible, intellectual force of nature in whatever capacity he serves.

Barney Frank's retirement is another example of how recession and redistricting will make 2012 the fourth straight change election. More incumbents in both parties will likely forego campaigning in brand new districts or in intra-party contests, so expect to see less of a national wave and more of a series of regional whirlpools. 2012 is still very much up for grabs - all incumbents must stay focused on working as hard to create jobs as we the American people are working to find or keep them.

This is indeed an indication that Democrats don't think they're going to win back the House. Barney Frank is 71, but few members of Congress retire just because they've reached normal retirement age, and he seems to be in good health.

His decade-long defense of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - like blocking a reform attempt by saying that concerns about the agencies were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever" - might hurt a 30-year incumbent in some districts, but Frank still won comfortably in 2010 after all those issues were aired. He loves politics, he's not in political trouble, he's not (so far as I know) sick; the only conclusion is that he just doesn't want to spend another two years in the minority.

Barney Frank not running is certainly a huge loss of a progressive voice and unparalleled leader. However, retirements like these have little to do with our ability to take back the House. We can win districts like this. What would be key is retirement of Republicans, not Democrats. We want to run against these incumbent Republicans who have such an atrocious voting record and who are firmly tied to the failure of Congress, as the new Gallup poll shows today.

The key to taking back the House is to make sure our donors realize how doable it is and put up the resources. I worry the most that retirements like these might incorrectly discourage them

Trey HardinSenior VP at VOX Global; Republican strategist and former aide to House Leadership :

Frank’s retirement is absolutely a sign of the Democrats’ lack of confidence in winning back the House next November.

Barney Frank has two strengths that make him an effective legislator: seniority and knowledge. However, when in the minority those strengths are limited considerably. Power is a drug in this town and it’s hard to believe Rep. Frank would end a 31 year career in Congress if he thought there was a realistic chance for the democrats to win back the House, which would result in him being chairman of a major committee. Frank is an active leader and fundraiser for his party. If he is calling it quits, that is telling as to the level of confidence currently being felt in the Democrats’ war room.

Michele L. SwersGeorgetown University Associate Professor of American Government :

Frank won with a lower than usual, 53% of the vote last time, and Massachusetts is losing a seat to redistricting. Perhaps Frank feels that the personal and financial cost of running a re-election campaign in the current toxic political environment outweigh the potential that Democrats will win the majority and he would regain the chairmanship of the Financial Services committee. As a result, future debates over the Dodd-Frank financial services reform bill will occur without the two authors of the reform measure. Moreover, Democrats will lose a prime messenger of the party's economic message as Frank is a frequent guest on Sunday talk shows and often quoted in the media.

Ed EspinozaWestern states Democratic consultant; former DNC official :

Does the retirement of a CEO mean the end of a company? My point is that we see retirements every year - even in Congress. Barney Frank will be missed, but his leaving is a normal part of the political cycle.

More sensible leaders of both political stripes can be expected to leave politics as Washington is increasingly held hostage by intransigent conservative extremists. Barney Frank's retirement isn't just unfortunate news for Democrats, it's unfortunate news for a nation founded on the ideals of democratic deliberation.

Barney Frank is about the best reader of tea leaves I know. His retirement undoubtedly signals that he does not think the House majority is winnable. The possibility has been there for more senior Democrats to bail for some time; whether that makes more seats vulnerable or not depends on which seats are vacated.

Barney Frank leaving Congress should make representatives pause, not just Democrats but anyone who worries about the body.

Frank takes with him not only one of the quickest wits and feistiest temperaments Washington has ever seen, but also a wealth of institutional knowledge that will be impossible to replace. The 112th Congress, being both intractable and incapable of forward movement is driving good public servants from the ranks. Dante would have written in another circle of hell if he has interned or staffed for someone on the Hill.

Long-serving members on both sides are deciding that the game has changed: not just politically but from the governing perspective as well. If a member went to Congress to govern, he or she realizes that this is not their bailiwick. Frank's departure will definitely make a Democratic majority much more difficult. His district was one of the safest in Massachusetts. Seeing Barney Frank decide that there are easier ways to make a living is going to make a representative think twice about going once more into the breach, especially those facing difficult races and challenges from third party groups. It would not be surprising to see other Democrats decide that a career change is in order.

The New Hampshire Union Leader's endorsement of Newt Gingrich provides a well-timed boost to the former speaker's presidential bid. In an apparent allusion to GOP rival Mitt Romney, publisher Joseph McQuaid acknowledged that Gingrich is not “perfect” but explained: “We would rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear.”

The Union Leader endorsement hurts Romney more than it helps Gingrich. The New Hampshire primary always reveals a presidential candidate's true character win or lose. The Union Leader has watched Romney's political career in Massachusetts since 1994 and know him as a part-time resident of New Hampshire as well. They know of what they speak.

When you look at the soft poll numbers Romney has in New Hampshire you see that their campaign is operating from a premise of concern not confidence. The campaign of inevitability Romney is waging is one of false bravado. Their six-week strategy reveals how deep those concerns really are for them. Taking a page from the 2004 Kerry presidential campaign they are trying to win Iowa and use it as a slingshot so they can win New Hampshire. For Romney, like Kerry, no New Hampshire win means no nomination. Kerry pulled it off. Romney has less of a chance to do so.

The Union Leader has spoken. And the voters of New Hampshire will speak to the nation in 43 days. When they do the nation will know the real Mitt Romney. And it is highly likely the country will think twice before they put the fate of the nation in his hands.

I think it is a mix, hurting Romney but helping Newt much more. It was a boost just at the right time, when people were wondering if his rise in the polls was just another rocket style rise (ala Trump, Bachmann, Cain, Perry) and then a crash and burn back to earth.

His challenge in N.H. is to get a strong campaign organization going. While he has been a somewhat often visitor to the state over the last four years, he really at one point had no one with his campaign and seemed to be just avoiding the state or when here, just bumbling along to various stops. Not anymore. He has gotten a strong email effort going with scheduled sign waves and campaign info. People are starting to ask for lawn signs.

The big test is what the conservatives in Iowa decide on getting behind one candidate and how his three day swing through South Carolina goes. I believe he may very well has cemented that two man race …..at least in the early states.

His Achilles heel? The three wives (he needs to address that sooner than later) and the past political baggage. While the government shut down and balanced budget under his speakership may fuel the support from tea party activists, will it turn off an offsetting number of voters? How will he play with undeclared voters? And how many Democrats would cross to vote for Newt rather than Mitt?

Many still believe that Mitt makes the best Obama showdown nominee and I tend to agree with that assessment at this point. Only Newt’s ability to build a coalition, raise the money needed, and positive polls will prove otherwise. And of course, be able to survive the onslaught of negative stories and comments that will soon rain down on him. The ball is in his court how he balances this …..tough but not appearing too stern. He isn’t known for his charm after all.

The Union Leader's endorsement is a huge and well deserved boost to Newt Gingrich's campaign. Gingrich has a record as Speaker of the House of pushing for smaller government whereas Mitt Romney's legacy as governor of Massachusetts is socialized medicine.

Gingrich would be a great president, and he will be a formidable candidate against President Obama.

It's hard to imagine anyone unseating Mitt Romney from the top of the leader-board in New Hampshire. Newt Gingrich's recent rise in the polls is just the latest manifestation of the indecision enveloping the non-Romney elements of the GOP. Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry - each of them has at some point in the past year won, and then quickly lost, the fickle support of the non Romney voices in the GOP. Gingrich will likely suffer the same fate.

You can't dismiss this endorsement. It helps keep the story line going that this is now a Mitt vs. Newt race. It helps Newt raise money, which he desperately needs, and it drives free press that focuses on the credibility of his candidacy and rightful heir to the anti-Mitt mantle.

It also probably drives some conservatives to his side in N.H.. Mitt is going to win N.H., but this may help cut his margin. But this endorsement may mean more to Newt's campaign outside of N.H. than in the state.

Anything which encourages the considerable Not-Mitt wing of the Republican party to coalesce around one candidate is bad for Mitt.

Newt (or whoever that candidate is - I'm still stunned it wasn't Perry) still needs to win Iowa or South Carolina and finish credibly in the other to have the resources to compete in Florida and beyond, and there's no reason why Newt can't appeal to all those potential supporters.

This endorsement is damning for Romney because it resurrects the authenticity issue that was so problematic for him in 2008. Even though he says the right thing, conservatives don't believe him. They think he is trying to fake them out.

I returned home last night to find a robo-call from Newt on my voicemail. Me, feminist activist living on New York's Upper West Side and proudly claiming most of its stereotypical demographics. He's obviously going for broke.

Had his operatives done such a thorough job of research that they found out I was born and lived most of my life in the reddest parts of red states and once registered Republican for one month? That I'd done so to vote for a moderate, pro-choice GOP candidate in a district where the Democrats didn't even bother to field a contender?

Researchers dig for such data and might assume I'd be open to pulling the R lever, but overall, political memory is short and fickle. How many people today even remember the "Gingrich Revolution" fueled by the draconian conservative Contract With America that presaged the tea party and brought us a brand of welfare reform that threw millions onto the street and off of health care coverage?

Timing is key. So what if Newt left a string of wives in the lurch, including one with terminal cancer, while plying his latest love with Tiffany's baubles paid for by influence peddling? Up against his rivals, the history professor starts to look good again. Newt at least can string a compound sentence together. And above all, he is Not Romney.

Yet despite The New Hampshire Union Leader's endorsement, New Hampshire is probably Newt's last stand. Even if he wins it, the likelihood of his carrying a NH victory forward to the presidency is slim. But stranger things have happened, and hey, it is the Republican primary 2011. Oh wait, that's 2012. It's far from time to declare anyone the winner yet.

Ron FaucheuxPresident of Clarus Research Group, professor and author :

With just four full campaign weeks before Iowa, timing is working in favor of Gingrich. If he can land a one-two punch, winning Iowa and either winning New Hampshire or running a very strong second there, he can gain tremendous momentum.

That would probably knock out most of the other candidates and open the door for Gingrich to sweep the delegate-rich South, starting with South Carolina. Anything that strengthens Gingrich in New Hampshire, such as the Union Leader endorsement, is a big deal.

The Union Leader clearly can't stand Romney, but its endorsement of Gingrich signifies that there is now a credible conservative standard bearer to Romney emerging - and one with considerable intellectual heft, unlike dodo birds Bachmann,

Perry and Cain. Again, the emergence of all these candidates, including Gingrich, says as much about Romney as it does about them. Romney may end up as the nominee, but he's never going to be the Republicans' dream date. More like the guy your mom made you go out with.

The real questions are how much the Union Leader goes after Romney with front page editorials, as they did four years ago, and how nationalized those critiques become. Already today, the DNC appears to have jumped into the mix with an ad that could drive conservative uncertainty with Romney.

The Union Leader's endorsement is another indication of the discomfort of many in the Republican Party with Gov. Romney and with the possibility that he may, indeed, win the nomination. Thus far, polls suggest Romney is ahead in New Hampshire.

If former Speaker Gingrich wins the New Hampshire primary, the newspaper's endorsement will be interpreted as pivotal. A Romney victory, however, will confirm the general view that such endorsements are meaningless particularly in this era of the decline of the print media. We will not have to wait too long to assess the consequences!

Both, helps Gingrich and hurts Romney. It may not make a difference in Hew Hampshire. It does provide continued credibility to Gingrich as he continues to rise. It gives the anti-Romney people something to rally around.

The endorsement has only been helpful in selecting two previous primary winner, Reagan in 1980 and McCain in 2008. Whether Gingrich can maintain the role as the alternative to Romney and overcome the 27pt. lead Romney has, only time will tell.

Clearly, this is a blow to Romney. But, remember, they endorsed Steve Forbes in 2000 and Pat Buchanan twice before they picked a "winner" in McCain in 2008. After all the debates and all the vetting of problem-laden candidates what the Union Leader may be telling us is that "none of the above" is where the Republicans are five weeks before voting starts.

The Union Leader endorsement, which was never going to go to Romney in any case, helps Gingrich much more - as it gives him a leg up on the Anyone But Romney vote. Those who listen to Union Leader editorials would not have voted for Romney in any case.

The Manchester, N.H. Union Leader endorsement of Newt Gingrich puts the former House Speaker in play in the Granite state and may help him earn top spot in the Anti-Romney primary within the primary.

Union Leader endorsement or not, Gingrich still has a steep hill to climb before he overtakes Mitt Romney. BTW, the newspaper's endorsement says that Gingrich is not "perfect". That has to be the political understatement of the year.

“We look for conservatives of courage and conviction who are independent-minded, grounded in their core beliefs about this nation and its people, and best equipped for the job.” Union Leader endorsement of Newt Gingrich.

Unless the Romney campaign is guilty of industrial strength incompetence, this endorsement will add little value to Newt’s campaign.

Just which of Newt’s “core beliefs” does the Union Leader refer? Climate change? The Paul Ryan budget? Health care mandates? Cap and trade? U.S. intervention in Libya? Newt went 180 on all of those insignificant issues – or at least his answers in changing his positions were so muddled that they made little sense. Maybe Newt forgot that he voted for amnesty for undocumented immigrants in 1986.

Not a perfect candidate indeed – when Newt figures out what his “core beliefs” really are, maybe he will tell us.

Newt's dream of being this election's comeback kid is finally being realized with an endorsement by the heavies over at the Union Leader, an editorial board notorious for backing the wrong candidate.

The fact that one of the most conservative publications in the world chose not to endorse Romney is no big surprise. What is surprising is that it wasn't Rick Perry, the man who practically fell to his knees and wept in gratitude for a bottle of New Hampshire's own homegrown maple syrup.

While the Union Leader does not have a great history of picking conservative candidates - noted in their ultimately failed endorsements of Steve Forbes and Patrick Buchanan (twice) - this does send a message that pragmatic conservatism is the pick of the day.

Neither Newt Gingrich nor Mitt Romney are pragmatic conservatives on the environmental and foreign policy fronts (noted in their mutually conservative tacks to the far right when it comes to the future of the Environmental Protection Agency and US-Iran relations). On domestic policy, however, while Romney started out of the gate a pragmatic conservative - reforming health care in Massachusetts and acknowledging climate change - he has since rescinded some of his more moderate policies.

Gingrich, in contrast, showed his pragmatic proclivities in his latest policy prescriptions for immigration reform. It was ultimately a smart move - and one a fiscal conservative would make - as Gingrich recognized the necessary financials gains to be garnered from reform. As I've noted before in previous columns, any deportation plan of America's undocumented immigrants would cost our country's gross domestic product $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years, according to a study by UCLA professor Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda.

Conversely, if we embrace comprehensive immigration reform, we add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product over the next 10 years. Gingrich knows that our economy cannot endure the former and that we must pursue the latter. And that's exactly the kind of conservative for which the Union Leader was looking.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.